umpires conferring

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Duly noted- and irrelevent to the situation.

I was talking to dakota, he, among others on the board, like to not read what is written, make assumptions, and start going off on tangents.

Originally Posted by BretMan

Basically, one umpire cannot step in on his own and reverse the call of another. An umpire can make a call, then confer with his partner if he so chooses. His partner can offer any additional information he may have, but ONLY the umpire who made the original can change or reverse it. It's up to him. He doesn't have to or he can if he wants to, but he is the only one that can change it!

that was the answer I was looking for, I dont know why its so hard for some to just give an answer without going into diatribes.

thank you.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

I was talking to dakota, he, among others on the board, like to not read what is written, make assumptions, and start going off on tangents.

Speaking of not reading what was written, I told you the same thing about the ruling. In previous postings, you've claimed to umpire games, yet your lack of knowledge on some of the basics is astonishing.

[wadeintothem]

I actually had this debate recently whereby a coach was saying (fairly vigourously) by rule that me and my partner could not confer because a judgement call is not "appealable". He also said that the other coach could not even ask about it because the call wasnt protestable.

Obviously the layman's usage of the terms"appeal" does cause them confusion as they misread rules.

If an umpire thinks that he is missing a part of the puzzle to make a call that his partner may well be able to provide, it is entirely appropriate in many instances for an umpire to go to his partner.

Because of the nature of some calls and/or the positioning of partners at certain times, it would be inappropriate to go to them because they do not have a credible vantage. In those instances, you are actually throwing your partner under the bus if you cannot stand firm on your call.

I think UMPIRE training and experience will let you know when your partner can provide credible (i.e. "saleable") input.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I actually had this debate recently whereby a coach was saying (fairly vigourously) by rule that me and my partner could not confer because a judgement call is not "appealable". He also said that the other coach could not even ask about it because the call wasnt protestable.

And what rule was that?

[crazygolf]

What happened in the second case of your OP is the plate umpire saw that he did not have a good view of the play, saw that his partner was in position with a good view, and gave the call up to him. Whether or not this is good practice is debatable, but it is allowed. It can work well between umpires who are very accustomed to working together.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking of not reading what was written, I told you the same thing about the ruling. In previous postings, you've claimed to umpire games, yet your lack of knowledge on some of the basics is astonishing.

Is today "understatement day?"

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Is today "understatement day?"

Maybe, but I guess so was Sept 12.

[BuggBob]

Maybe it is me but this thread appears to have one troll and two spams.

Bugg

[tcannizzo]

It it my understanding that the calling umpire always makes the final call.
It was explained to me that even in the case of a protest, where the UIC is called in, that after deliberation, the UIC should inform the calling umpire of the ruling, AND that it is entirely up to the calling umpire whether or not to reverse the call, even if the UIC has clearly communicated to the calling umpire that the call was wrong. The takeaway is that even the UIC will not make the "corrected" call.

Of course, if the calling umpire refused to apply the correct call that would be a career decision.

Proper procedure is after the conference between the umpire team, that the calling umpire should have issued the reversed call.

That being said, it seems like the OP is asking an informed question, but one that would not dictate the ultimate outcome.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

It it my understanding that the calling umpire always makes the final call.
It was explained to me that even in the case of a protest, where the UIC is called in, that after deliberation, the UIC should inform the calling umpire of the ruling, AND that it is entirely up to the calling umpire whether or not to reverse the call, even if the UIC has clearly communicated to the calling umpire that the call was wrong. The takeaway is that even the UIC will not make the "corrected" call.

Of course, if the calling umpire refused to apply the correct call that would be a career decision.

Proper procedure is after the conference between the umpire team, that the calling umpire should have issued the reversed call.

That being said, it seems like the OP is asking an informed question, but one that would not dictate the ultimate outcome.

Protest situations do not deal with calls that a player/coach feel that an umpire may have blown due to poor judgment. They deal solely with the misapplication of a rule. There is no call to be made in a protest, in other words. The UIC has to decide if a rule has actually been misapplied, and then correct the situation, if need be.

Now, a situation where an umpire seeks further information by conferring with his partner(s), then there is a call to be made, and it SHOULD be made by the umpire who made the original call. He can either reverse his original call, or stick it.